Reported Decision: 66 NSWLR 446
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Police Integrity Commission & Anor v Shaw [2006] NSWCA 165
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 6 June 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
30 June 2006JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 38; Basten JA at 39 DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Set aside the declarations and order for costs made on 26 August 2005 and in lieu thereof order that the summons be dismissed; (3) Respondent pay appellants’ costs of the trial and the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified. CATCHWORDS: Police Integrity Commission - investigation of police misconduct - police blood sample ended up in respondent's possession - conduct of public hearing - reporting to Parliament in relation to matters as to which public hearing conducted - proceedings for declaratory relief - whether Commission had eliminated police misconduct - whether could report that respondent had engaged in misconduct - construction of Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 - consideration (by Basten JA) of proper parties to proceedings - and of nature of jurisdictional error and availability of relief. LEGISLATION CITED: Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988;
Police Act 1990;
Police Integrity Commission Act 1996;
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999.CASES CITED: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564;
Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 297;
Brown v Rezitis (1970) 127 CLR 157;
Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125;
Kerr v Commisioner of Police and Crown Employees Appeal Board [1977] 2 NSWLR 721;
Malika Holdings Pty Ltd v Stretton (2001) 204 CLR 290;
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611;
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72;
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369;
Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277;
The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13;
The Queen v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100;
The Queen v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte WA National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190;
R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407;
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 79 ALJR 1009;
Shaw v Police Integrity Commission [2005] NSWSC 782.PARTIES: Police Integrity Commission - First Claimant/First Appellant
Terence Peter Griffin - Second Claimant/Second Appellant
Jeffrey William Shaw - Opponent/RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40775/05 COUNSEL: D F Jackson QC & J K Kirk - Claimants/Appellants
B Walker SC & A Moses - Opponent/RespondentSOLICITORS: I V Knight, Crown Solicitor - Claimants/Appellants
Turner Freeman - Opponent/RespondentLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6993/04 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Continue reading Police Integrity Commission v Shaw
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Police Integrity Commission v Shaw [2006] NSWCA 165
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 165
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Supreme Court that had granted declaratory relief to Mr Shaw. The dispute concerned the PIC's investigation into allegations of police misconduct, specifically the circumstances under which a police blood sample came into Mr Shaw's possession. The PIC had conducted a public hearing and subsequently made a report to Parliament regarding matters arising from that hearing, including whether Mr Shaw had engaged in misconduct.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the PIC had acted within its powers under the *Police Integrity Commission Act 1996* (NSW) in its report to Parliament, particularly concerning its findings about Mr Shaw's conduct. This involved determining whether the PIC had properly eliminated the alleged police misconduct and whether it was entitled to report that Mr Shaw had engaged in misconduct, given the nature of the public hearing conducted. The court also considered the proper parties to the proceedings and the availability of relief in the context of jurisdictional error.
The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, found that the PIC had not acted within its statutory authority in its report concerning Mr Shaw. The court reasoned that the PIC's powers to report on misconduct were tied to the specific matters investigated and that its findings regarding Mr Shaw were not adequately supported by the process undertaken. Consequently, the court set aside the declarations and costs order made by the Supreme Court and, in lieu, ordered that Mr Shaw's summons be dismissed. Mr Shaw was ordered to pay the PIC's costs of both the trial and the appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the PIC had acted within its powers under the *Police Integrity Commission Act 1996* (NSW) in its report to Parliament, particularly concerning its findings about Mr Shaw's conduct. This involved determining whether the PIC had properly eliminated the alleged police misconduct and whether it was entitled to report that Mr Shaw had engaged in misconduct, given the nature of the public hearing conducted. The court also considered the proper parties to the proceedings and the availability of relief in the context of jurisdictional error.
The Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, found that the PIC had not acted within its statutory authority in its report concerning Mr Shaw. The court reasoned that the PIC's powers to report on misconduct were tied to the specific matters investigated and that its findings regarding Mr Shaw were not adequately supported by the process undertaken. Consequently, the court set aside the declarations and costs order made by the Supreme Court and, in lieu, ordered that Mr Shaw's summons be dismissed. Mr Shaw was ordered to pay the PIC's costs of both the trial and the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed; (2) Set aside the declarations and order for costs made on 26 August 2005 and in lieu thereof order that the summons be dismissed; (3) Respondent pay appellants' costs of the trial and the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.